Anabaptism is no Arnold Schwarzenegger. It’s not a household name and it isn’t the governor of California. You may not know what Anabaptism is, or you may know but don’t understand how it might affect biblical interpretation. For that reason, I feel that I should take a moment here and articulate how my understanding of Anabaptism forms my understanding of the Bible. If you’re a pro when it comes to Anabaptism, you may know all this (or you may disagree with me). If so, please indulge me. If not, I hope this information contributes to the betterment of your soul (that is, if there is a soul, see Nancey Murphy about that).

There are many ideas about how to define Anabaptists, but perhaps I should begin with the name. Ana-baptism means a re-baptism. The Anabaptists were a part of the 16th century “radical Reformation” movement and they felt that the mainline Reformers like Luther or Zwingli were not going far enough. One contentious issue was that of infant baptism. I know that many today wonder what the big deal is about baptism, but here’s the rub: the Anabaptists believed the people of the church should be voluntary believers. Baptism in 16th century Europe made a clear connection with the state-run church. For the state churches, baptism was not only a means for entrance into the church, it was (in the absence of birth certificates) a method of tracking tax-paying citizens. To the state, if you did not baptize your infant, you denied your allegiance to the state. For the Anabaptists, infant baptism corrupted the church. Baptism was no longer being used as a declaration of their committment to follow Jesus, but as a declaration of their allegiance to the government. On top of this, they felt that an infant couldn’t make a voluntary decision to follow Jesus anyway. Some of them, then, began to rebaptize one another. They did not necessarily think of it as “re-baptism” because they did not see their infant baptism as valid, but their opponents called them Anabaptists and the name stuck.

Since it is a believer’s church, with an emphasis on discipleship and a skepticism of the state, there are many ways they have a unique Christian perspective. My own understanding of the Anabaptist point of view (or hermeneutic) is its emphasis on discipleship, obedience, and community. Anabaptists believe that the life of the Christian takes place in a dedicated community of fellow Jesus followers who are accountable to one another. As it is a community-based theology, all the people of the community (ideally) have a voice. So those who are not fortunate enough to be able to afford an expensive education, still have important things to say about the Bible and theology. One feature that I see in the Anabaptist perspective is that it lacks the need for inerrancy in order to take the Bible seriously. Many Anabaptists feel the debates stemming from inerrancy only distract from following the actual commands of Jesus. And yes, it is a Christocentric reading of Scripture. We all have biases in our reading of the Bible (those of us who read the Bible) and I say, why not just be up front about it?

The best, most recent treatment of Anabaptist biblical interpretation (that I know of) is Stuart Murray’s Biblical Interpretation in the Anabaptist Tradition and you can get a survey of his book on the Anabaptist Network website. Two of the key themes in the book, as I read it, are “congregational hermeneutics” and the “hermeneutics of obedience.” Interpretation of the Bible occurs within the local congregational community. I mention local and congregational to highlight that “community” means more than “Christian tradition,” it means the people with whom I share my walk. Additionally, the ruler for judging correct biblical interpretation has to have something to do with obedience. If we declare that we have all the Bible answers and yet it does nothing to help us become more obedient disciples to Christ, then we might question the validity of our interpretation. This goes against the grain of modernity, which tells us that objective and disinterested truth is available to us if we set our minds to it. In the modern sense, the way we live our lives has nothing to do with the validity of the intellectual statements we make. In fact, if one questions the character of the person making an argument in order to argue against that argument, this is called an ad hominem attack.

Am I saying that character attacks are good? No. Instead I think one of my Anabaptist professors at Fuller put it well when he said, “The devil can sign your statements of faith! What difference does it make?” Perhaps that’s a little much, but maybe not. What is the purpose of our belief? What is the purpose of our hermeneutic? Discipleship, discipleship, discipleship. (I do acknowledge, however, that not everything has to fall into the category of a serious pursuit of obedient discipleship. I’m not against just having fun at a movie, for instance, and I haven’t thought through the theological implications of enjoying Happy Gilmore or Office Space.)

So these are the themes with which I am working, the framework for viewing interpretation. I am in a period of my life in which I am wrestling through the foundation of my hermeneutic. Some of my lingering questions are:

1. What is the role of the historical-critical method if what is truly important are the implications of the text itself upon our lives?
2. If Anabaptism seeks to empower the humble layperson in the interpretative process, but education is needed to understand the complicated historical and cultural backgrounds to the biblical text, how is empowerment possible? How much education do we have to provide to laypersons who have no interest in the apocalyptic nature of 1 Enoch and its implications for Jesus’ eschatological teachings in Matthew?
3. The nature of academic study is individualistic. How can we truly have “congregational hermeneutics” when the scholars do their study and make up their minds in isolation?
4. Many at my seminary have declared that not everything we do in theology or biblical exegesis must be relevant or practical to our lives. I resonate with this thought, but don’t know how to reconcile it with my theology.
5. If obedience is the judge of appropriate interpretation, what do we do with the vast amount of obedient Christians who have vastly different ways of reading the biblical text? Does this mean that the differences are not as important as we think they are? How can we best nuance the concept of “hermeneutics of obedience” in light of that? Furthermore, who gets to decide the definition of “obedience”?